Floor Statements

Mr. President, there is a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of over 45 million people in the United States, and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the No. 1 issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the No. 1 issue for many Americans. Nevertheless, the issue has been largely ignored in the Halls of Congress. We sit idle, locked in a stalemate, refusing to give this life-threatening problem its due attention. We need a way to break that deadlock, and that is why I have introduced a bill with the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, that will do just that--the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

Senator Graham and I are from opposite ends of the political spectrum, we are from different areas of the country, and we have different views on health care. But we agree that something needs to be done about health care in our country. Every day, all over our Nation, Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even change they way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical discomfort. These Americans bear the additional burden of wondering where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health care needs.

When illness strikes families, the last thing they should have to think about is money, but for many in our country, this is a persistent burden that causes additional stress and hopelessness when they are ill.

It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. Forty-seven percent of the uninsured avoided seeking care in 2003 due to the cost. Thirty-five percent needed care but did not get it. Thirty-seven percent did not fill a prescription because of cost. The uninsured are seven times more likely to seek care in an emergency room. They are less likely to receive preventative care because they cannot afford to see the doctor, and they are more likely to die as a result. Each year, at least 18,000 people die prematurely in this country because of uninsurance. If the uninsured had access to continuous health coverage, a reduction in mortality of 5 percent to 15 percent could be achieved.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee health care for its citizens. In other countries, if someone is sick, they get proper care regardless of ability to pay. In our country, that is not the case. It is unacceptable for a nation as great as America to not provide good health care for all our citizens. We are failing those in need. We are failing the hard-working family that cannot afford the insurance offered to them. We are failing the uninsured children whose parents do not have any access to insurance. We are failing low-income Americans and middle-income Americans alike. This is not right. We can do better.

Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. More and more, employers are forced to increase employee cost- sharing or to offer subpar benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation.

I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold townhall meetings. Almost every year, the No. 1 issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These people used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator Graham in introducing the State- Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot project to provide states with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement, it just provides an incentive for action, provided the states meet certain minimum coverage and low- income requirements.

Even though Senator Graham and I support different methods of health care reform, we both agree that this legislation presents a viable solution to the logjam preventing reform. I have long said that a single-payer health care system is what I prefer for our country. Senator Graham would like to see health care privatized and see a base, catastrophic coverage offered to everyone. Despite our disagreements about the form that health care reform should take, we agree on this legislation.

This bipartisan legislation harnesses the talent and ingenuity of Americans to come up with new solutions. This approach takes advantage of America's greatest resources--the mind power and creativity of the American people--to move our country toward the goal of a working health care system with universal coverage. With help from the Federal Government, States will be able to try new ways of covering all their residents, and our political logjam around health care will begin to loosen.

Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we should change the health care system in this country. Some propose using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a national single payer health care system is the only way to go. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system.

Under our proposal, States can be creative in the state resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a state can use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to the approval of the newly created Health Care Coverage Task Force, which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This task force will be responsible for choosing viable state projects and ensuring that the projects are effective. The task force will also help the States develop projects, and will continue a dialogue with the States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and Federal Governments.

The task force is also charged with making sure that the State plans meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act bases affordability on income.

Another provision in this legislation requires that the States contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. States that can afford to provide more are encouraged to, but the matching requirement will ensure the financial viability of the bill and state buy-in. Other than these requirements, the states largely have flexibility to design a plan that works best for their respective residents. The possibilities for reform are wide open.

One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The bill doesn't avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be made if we are going to pay for health care reform.

One of the offsets in the bill was proposed by the Congressional Budget Office: an increase in the flat rebate paid by drug manufacturers for Medicaid prescription drugs. Currently, Medicaid recoups a portion of its drug spending through a rebate paid by the manufacturer. The savings mechanism would set a flat rebate, and provide funding for the States' health care reform projects. Another offset in the bill, also proposed by the Congressional Budget Office, is reduced subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits for the highest income seniors. This would impact only single retirees earning more than $80,000 per year and married retirees earning more than $160,000--less than 5 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries.

Additional funding for the bill comes from the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to auction the radio spectrum and the authority of Customs and Border Protection to collect multiple different conveyance and passenger user fees through fiscal year 2016. My bill proposes similar extensions of these established authorities. Also, my bill proposes to both simplify and reduce the Federal subsidy of airline passenger screening costs by replacing the current variable fee, which is capped at $5 per one-way trip, with a flat $5 fee. This proposal is similar to one in the president's fiscal year 2007 budget and

would decrease Federal subsidies to about 30 percent of passenger security costs, without reducing aviation security spending.

We can say that it is time to move toward universal coverage, but it is empty rhetoric without a feasible plan. I believe that this is the way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is providing a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of health care costs.

It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis.

We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That is an injustice, but it is one we can and must address. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality. I urge my colleagues to support the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. President, I congratulate the University of Wisconsin men's track and field team for winning the 43rd annual National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, Indoor Track and Field Championship. As a proud alumnus, I enjoy the many opportunities to tout the success of the Badgers to my colleagues.

With their win on March 10, 2007, the Wisconsin men's track team became the first-ever Big Ten Conference school to win the NCAA Division I Indoor Track and Field Championship. Earlier in the season, the Badgers earned their seventh consecutive Big 10 championship by defeating the University of Minnesota by 27 points on February 24, 2007.

I sincerely congratulate Coach Ed Nuttycombe and Assistant Coaches Jerry Schumacher and Mark Guthrie for their dedication and hard work throughout the season. Congratulations to senior Chris Solinsky, who rewrote the record book in Wisconsin as a high school runner, on winning his fourth individual NCAA title, placing first in the 5,000- meter race.

The athletic prowess of the University of Wisconsin is a source of pride throughout my State and for alumni everywhere. I applaud the men's track and field team for its impressive accomplishment and wish it best of luck for a successful future.

Mr. President, today, as a proud alumnus, I congratulate the University of Wisconsin for another fantastic season. This year, the University of Wisconsin women's hockey team defended its National Collegiate Athletic Association Championship, earning its second straight title.

The hard work of the Badger women's hockey team culminated in a 4-1 victory over the University of Minnesota-Duluth in the NCAA championship game on March 18, 2007, in Lake Placid, NY. The Badgers finished their season on a 26-game unbeaten streak and totaled an outstanding final record of 36-1-4.

I commend and congratulate Coach Mark Johnson, a member of the championship Badger hockey team of 1977. The Badgers won the title at Lake Placid, the site of the 1980 ``Miracle on Ice'' U.S. Olympic hockey team, of which Johnson was a member.

The continuing success of University of Wisconsin athletics has made the people of Wisconsin, and alumni throughout the country, proud to be Badgers. The success of this superb team helps remind sports fans in Wisconsin and around the country of UW-Madison's place as a dominant force in Big Ten and national athletics.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague in the other body, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2007. Congressman Ryan and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many important issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, WI, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility.

The measure we are each introducing today would grant the President specific authority to rescind or cancel congressional earmarks, including earmarked spending, tax breaks, and tariff benefits. This new authority would sunset at the end of 2012, ensuring that Congress will have a chance to review its use under two different Administrations before considering whether or not to extend it. While not a true line- item veto bill, our measure provides for fast-track consideration of the President's proposed cancellation of earmarks. Thus, unlike current law, it ensures that for the specific category of congressional earmarks, the President will get an up or down vote on his proposed cancellations.

There have been a number of so-called line-item veto proposals offered in the past several years. But the measure Congressman Ryan and I propose today is unique in that it specifically targets the very items that every line-item veto proponent cites when promoting a particular measure, namely earmarks. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority.

That is exactly what our bill does. It provides the President with new expedited rescission authority--what has been commonly referred to as a line-item veto--to cancel congressional earmarks. The definitions of earmarks that we use are the very definitions upon which each house has agreed in passing legislation earlier this year.

Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a growing problem. By one estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year, and while I have opposed granting the President line-item veto authority to effectively reshape programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for this specific category, I support giving the President this additional tool.

Under our proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they would become law.

The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that's what we are trying to get at with this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague in the other body, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2007. Congressman Ryan and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many important issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, WI, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility.

The measure we are each introducing today would grant the President specific authority to rescind or cancel congressional earmarks, including earmarked spending, tax breaks, and tariff benefits. This new authority would sunset at the end of 2012, ensuring that Congress will have a chance to review its use under two different Administrations before considering whether or not to extend it. While not a true line- item veto bill, our measure provides for fast-track consideration of the President's proposed cancellation of earmarks. Thus, unlike current law, it ensures that for the specific category of congressional earmarks, the President will get an up or down vote on his proposed cancellations.

There have been a number of so-called line-item veto proposals offered in the past several years. But the measure Congressman Ryan and I propose today is unique in that it specifically targets the very items that every line-item veto proponent cites when promoting a particular measure, namely earmarks. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority.

That is exactly what our bill does. It provides the President with new expedited rescission authority--what has been commonly referred to as a line-item veto--to cancel congressional earmarks. The definitions of earmarks that we use are the very definitions upon which each house has agreed in passing legislation earlier this year.

Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a growing problem. By one estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year, and while I have opposed granting the President line-item veto authority to effectively reshape programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for this specific category, I support giving the President this additional tool.

Under our proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they would become law.

The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that's what we are trying to get at with this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation, America's Red Rocks Wilderness Act of 2007, to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of southern Utah.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with

the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's omnibus parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote:

Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first

daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all

Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado

Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include

some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not

fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress

this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would

protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah.

This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a

legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.

Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would cosponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.''

Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans.

I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation, America's Red Rocks Wilderness Act of 2007, to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of southern Utah.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with

the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's omnibus parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote:

Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first

daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all

Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado

Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include

some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not

fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress

this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would

protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah.

This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a

legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.

Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would cosponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.''

Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans.

I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, one of the biggest flaws in the Medicare prescription drug benefit is that it does not adequately address the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. By denying the Government the ability to negotiate price discounts, the benefit actually takes away one of the best tools the Medicare Program could use in bringing down prescription drug prices.

That is why I am a cosponsor of legislation that would help address this fundamental flaw. The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, S. 3, will remove language included in the Medicare Modernization Act that prohibits the Secretary of Health and

Human Services from negotiating prescription drug prices with manufacturers. The legislation goes a step further to require much needed data that would set the stage for additional legislation to strengthen negotiation in the future. This bill is something that the entire Senate should support, and I am disappointed that the Senate is being prevented from even debating, let alone voting on, this important bill.

When I talk about the new Medicare prescription drug benefit during my travels around my home State of Wisconsin, I continually hear from constituents about how they cannot believe that the Federal Government cannot negotiate with pharmaceutical companies about the prices of prescription drugs.

We need to help Medicare beneficiaries obtain affordable prescription drugs while still ensuring the Federal Government keeps prescription drug costs down. By lowering the underlying cost of prescription drugs offered through the Medicare Program, we will not only be helping beneficiaries save money, but we will also save the Federal Government money.

In a time of mushrooming deficits, skyrocketing prescription drug costs and an aging population, we need to be smart about how we use taxpayer dollars. If we are going to keep Medicare solvent, we need to take strong action to keep health care costs down, especially the increasing costs of the prescription drugs the new Medicare Program will be providing. This is the fiscally responsible thing to do, and it is also the compassionate thing to do as keeping drugs affordable ensures access to prescriptions for 43 million seniors.

I support this legislation, but I also support an even stronger step. It makes sense at this time to impose a mandate on the Secretary of HHS to negotiate lower prices. The Secretary should also have the right tools to negotiate effectively.

This bill doesn't address formulary or price control authority for the Secretary. An ideal bill would at least examine these issues closely, yet these are not mentioned. Formulary power and price controls in Medicare Part D should be debated in the near future, and the reports required in S. 3 will provide needed information for that debate.

So while I would like a stronger bill today, I support today's legislation because it is a giant step forward from where we are today. I hope my colleagues who are currently blocking this important legislation will reconsider their actions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last Wednesday, April 11, terrorists exploded two bombs in Algiers, Algeria, killing 33 people and wounding over 200. The terrorist organization al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb took credit for the attacks, which targeted the Algerian Prime Minister's office and a police station.

The attack occurred 1 day--1 day--after three would-be suicide bombers blew themselves up in Casablanca, Morocco, killing a police officer in the process. A fourth individual was shot before he could detonate his bomb. It also preceded, by only 3 days, attacks by two more would-be suicide bombers in Casablanca, Morocco, this time outside the American consulate and the American Language Center. The consulate subsequently closed.

While a link between the Algeria bombings and the terrorists in Morocco has not yet been established, the confluence of these events demonstrates an increasingly deadly and dangerous situation in North Africa, for the region, for the United States, and for our friends and our allies.

The bombings should also remind us of the need to be more globally focused in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates, which must be our national security priority. Yet the administration, fixated on Iraq, remains narrowminded in its focus and seemingly almost indifferent to last week's attacks in North Africa.

Until last fall, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb was known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or GSPC. It has been described by the State Department as a regional terrorist organization which recruits and operates in Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, and Tunisia, as well as in Europe.

In 2005, GSPC killed 15 people at a military outpost in Mauritania. Police in France, Italy, and Spain have arrested individuals suspected of providing support to the organization. GSPC has also called France ``public enemy number one.'' A French counterterrorism magistrate has described GSPC as the biggest terrorist threat facing his country today.

Last year, al-Qaida leadership announced its formal ties to the GSPC, raising concerns about the extension of al-Qaida's deadly reach. In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee this February, FBI Director Mueller warned of the possible consequences of

this alliance, including to the United States. According to Mueller's testimony:

Al-qaida has made efforts to align itself with established

regional terrorist groups such as the GSPC that may expand

the scope of the threat to the Homeland.

Despite this clear threat, our Nation barely took notice of the attacks last week. The State Department issued a brief statement. The White House said virtually nothing--or nothing. Vice President Cheney mentioned them during a radio interview on Friday and again on Sunday, but only in passing, as a part of his repeated efforts to try to link 9/11 to the war in Iraq and to support an endless and disastrous war that is emboldening the members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

Let me read exactly what the Vice President said:

We had--just this week there were attacks in Algeria and

Morocco by al-Qaida, bombings that were aimed at killing

innocent civilians. It is a global conflict, by anybody's

measure. And it is clearly against some of the world's worst

offenders, and Iraq is very much a part of that. It is, right

now, the central front on that global conflict.

Amazingly, the only comments by the White House on these horrific attacks in north Africa were to insist that a terrorist attack in Algeria somehow proved that Iraq, more than 2,000 miles away, is the central front in the war on terrorism. The Vice President's assertions are not just factually wrong, they are offensive to the people murdered in Algeria last week, as well as their families and all those working hard to capture these terrorists. It is also indicative of everything that is wrong with this administration's national security policies.

We should be directing our attention and resources to combating the threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates, wherever they may be. As we all know, this is not a conventional war. It requires better intelligence, better cooperation with friends and allies, stronger regional institutions, and diplomatic and economic policies designed to deny terrorists safe havens. It is not easy, and I have enormous respect for the men and women in our intelligence community, diplomatic corps, military, and other elements of our Government who are working hard to protect us from this threat. We should provide them our full support, not only in terms of resources but also with an effective global counterterrorism strategy rather than the current myopic and misguided focus on Iraq.

First, we must improve our intelligence with regard to threats in Africa. The Intelligence authorization bill we were considering in the Senate earlier this week includes an amendment I offered with Senator Rockefeller calling for more intelligence resources to be directed to Africa. If we are to protect our national interests on the continent, we must commit ourselves to understanding not only the terrorist organizations that operate there but regional conflicts, corruption, poor governance, endemic poverty, and the historic marginalization that has allowed terrorists and other threats to fester.

Second, we must expand and strengthen our diplomatic and foreign assistance activities in the continent. Our presence in far-flung parts of Africa, whether it be a new consulate or outpost or an expanded USAID development or public health program, exposes local populations to our Nation, linking us to parts of the world which, as we know, we can no longer afford to ignore. We need to help build strong governmental institutions that respect human rights and an equally vibrant civil society, while also strengthening the relationship between the two.

Third, we need military policies that place counterterrorism in the context of a larger, more comprehensive strategy. Policies such as the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative are important, particularly in improving the capacities of local governments. But unless they are part of bilateral and multilateral policies that emphasize human rights and democratization and anticorruption, our military resources may be squandered or, worse, may be even directed in counterproductive ways. For this same reason, I have supported the establishment of an Africa Command within the Defense Department, while insisting that its mission be squarely within the broader strategic goals of the United States on the continent.

Fourth, we must develop effective policies for dealing with terrorist safe havens such as the one in the Sahel where al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb operates. According to the most recent State Department terrorism report, the organization not only trains, recruits, and operates in the region, it also raises money, including through smuggling. Clearly, confronting this organization requires addressing the root causes that have allowed it to develop and operate, whether they be poverty or corruption or the lack of government support to and presence in the region. We must develop comprehensive policies to confront these safe havens, including the settlement of regional conflicts and an adequate provision of economic and development assistance, so local populations can reject terrorist organizations.

Fifth, we must help governments in the region in their efforts to confront terrorist organizations. The most recent State Department terrorism report stated that, in Mali, the sheer size of the country and the limited resources of the Malian Government ``hamper the effectiveness of military patrols and Border Patrol measures.'' The report also indicated Mauritania, another country where al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb operates, lacks funding and resources to combat terrorism.

In order to combat international terrorist organizations such as the al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, we need regional strategies that address the capabilities and policies of all affected countries on a bilateral and multilateral basis. We must expand our assistance to these and other countries while ensuring that their counterterrorism policies are consistent with ours and that corruption and human rights abuses do not undermine efforts to combat terrorist organizations.

Sixth, we must work closely with our European allies. Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb is a direct threat to Europe; our allies have every incentive to work with us. By working to establish mutually agreed upon approaches to counterterrorism, we can develop a strong, coordinated strategy that helps keep all of us safer.

Seventh, we must encourage regional institutions to confront terrorism. For example, the African Union has established a Center for Study and Research on Terrorism to combat terrorism throughout the continent. This center and other regional initiatives are worthy of far more attention and support than we have thus far provided.

Finally, we must at last recognize that the fight against al-Qaida is being undermined by the endless war in Iraq. As the NIE of last April concluded, the war has become a ``cause celebre'' for international terrorists. Moreover, tactics from Iraq are now being used around the world, including by terrorists in Algeria. As the State Department terrorism report noted:

Using lessons from Iraq and wanting to reduce the level of

casualties sustained in direct confrontation with Algerian

security services, the GSPC carried out attacks using

roadside improvised explosive devices. In one act on

September 14, GSPC terrorists killed three Algerian soldiers

and wounded two others in a military vehicle near Boumerdes

by remotely detonating a roadside IED.

The horrific bombings last week in Algiers and the manifest threat in Morocco should remind us that our national security does not begin and end in Iraq. Indeed, Iraq remains a drain on our national attention to resources and an endless distraction from our real national security priorities, which is fighting al-Qaida and its affiliates. We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al-Qaida is continuing and will continue to be a global terrorist organization. Contrary to what the administration has implied, al-Qaida is not abandoning its efforts to fight us globally so it can fight us in Iraq. No. Instead, it is forming alliances with groups like the GSPC, and it is seeking to attack us and our friends and allies around the world. By downplaying this threat, the administration is ignoring the lessons of September 11 and endangering our Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I am very pleased to be here with her today. I sincerely thank the Senator from California for moving the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act through the Rules Committee so that we are now in a position to finally pass this legislation. As the Senator from California indicated, at last count, we now have 35 cosponsors for S. 223, 20 Democrats and 15 Republicans, and no known opposition.

The bill fixes the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get timely access to Senate campaign finance reports, even though most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission, FEC. This bill will finally bring Senate campaigns into the 21st century by amending the section of the election laws dealing with electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 hours.

This step is long overdue. There is no excuse for keeping our own campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House and Presidential candidates, PACs, parties, and even 527 organizations is readily available almost immediately. The Washington Post has called the outmoded Senate campaign reporting system ``obviously unjustified,'' and Roll Call has called it ``indefensible.'' I couldn't agree more.

The current system means that the FEC's detailed coding, which allows the press and the public to do more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. It means that the final disclosure reports covering the first 2 weeks of October are often not available for detailed scrutiny until after the election. That is scandalous and there is no good reason for it.

Let me just say that I know that the election laws have a big impact on campaigns and all Senators have a strong personal stake in vetting changes to those laws. I am very familiar with controversial and contested campaign finance legislation. This isn't that kind of bill. This bill is as close to a no-brainer as you can get in this area.

In addition to bipartisan support here in the Senate, major media outlets have endorsed it, as have bloggers on the left and the right. No one that I know of opposes it. And yet, it has now been nearly 3 and a half years since I first introduced it. That is nearly half as long as it took us to pass McCain-Feingold. I know McCain-Feingold. You might say McCain-Feingold is a friend of mine. This bill is no McCain- Feingold.

As I understand it, this bill has cleared the Democratic side. Given the strong support for it from across the political spectrum, and cosponsorship from many Republican Senators, and I especially thank Senator Cochran for being the main author along with me. I sincerely hope there won't be an objection on the Republican side. It would be wrong to hold this bill up as some kind of bargaining chip. It is time for the Senate to pass this bill, and I hope that can be done today.

Once again, I thank the Senator from California, and I yield the floor.

No, there is not.

That is all it does.

Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed and concerned about the continuing Republican filibuster of the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill. This bill is critical for our national security. It supports the intelligence community while ensuring that Congress can conduct necessary oversight of our intelligence activities. Failure to pass this legislation would undermine the men and women of our intelligence community who look to Congress not only for funding but for policy guidance and legal clarity. It also sends a terrible signal to the American people, that despite repeated abuses by this administration from warrantless wiretapping to National Security Letters, Senate Republicans have chosen to shield the administration from congressional scrutiny and oversight. Unchecked executive authority is contrary to our constitutional system. And the American people understand well what the 9/11 Commission stressed--that strong congressional oversight is an essential part of defending and protecting America.

There are a number of provisions of the bill that I view as particularly important. Besides authorizing the intelligence programs that help keep us safe, the bill improves congressional oversight of the intelligence community and advances the critical work of intelligence reform. The National Security Act requires that the congressional intelligence committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities. The administration failed to comply with this law with regard to its illegal warrantless wiretapping program. I am pleased, therefore, that this bill limits the ability of the executive branch to deny information to the full membership of the Intelligence Committee. I am also pleased that the classified annex to the bill includes my amendment calling on the administration to work with the committee to ensure adequate oversight of the program, which has not yet occurred.

With regard to intelligence reform, the bill establishes, within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, an inspector general of the intelligence community, which will strengthen accountability across the community. The bill also requires the declassification of the aggregate budget for all intelligence activities. This longstanding intelligence reform goal, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, will allow for basic budget transparency and a level of accountability without damaging our national security.

The bill includes an amendment I offered to the classified annex with Senator Rockefeller calling for more intelligence resources to be directed toward Africa. The continent presents a wide range of threats, such as terrorist havens and the transnational movements of terrorist organizations, while corruption, authoritarianism and poverty allow these conditions to fester. In order to bolster our national security, we need greater information and understanding of these threats. Of particular concern is Somalia, where the committee encouraged the intelligence community to work with other agencies of the U.S. Government on a comprehensive strategic plan for stability. Unfortunately, since the amendment was originally accepted by the committee in May 2006, the situation in the Horn of Africa has only deteriorated and the overall U.S. Government strategy for addressing the crisis remains sorely inadequate.

Finally, I am pleased that, in response to the concerns of Senator Wyden and myself, a provision creating a new exemption to the Privacy Act has been removed. Widespread abuses involving National Security Letters recently uncovered by the Department of Justice inspector general only underscore why Congress must conduct vigorous oversight of how current authorities are being used before providing new ones.

I again express my disappointment that the bill is being filibustered and hope that the bill will soon be passed into law.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly comment on an important settlement that has been recently announced by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC.

Four major radio station groups, Clear Channel, Entercom, Citadel, and CBS Radio, have taken an important first step in cleaning up the radio industry through today's consent decree with the FCC and side agreement with the independent music community on airplay and rules of engagement. I want to especially commend Commissioner Adelstein for his tireless work to bring these groups together and then-Attorney General Spitzer for spearheading the initial investigation that has led to State and now Federal settlements.

I was encouraged to see internal business reforms, increased recordkeeping for transactions between labels and radio stations and unfettered access to these records by the FCC as part of the consent decrees. While these provisions are not as broad as those included in my previous payola legislation, the increased recordkeeping and disclosure in the consent decrees represent a step in the right direction. Transparency and accountability through sustained oversight will go a long way in eliminating the pervasive shadowy practices that have plagued the radio industry on and off almost since its inception.

While the parties to the consent decrees do not directly admit wrongdoing, the payment of $12.5 million to the U.S. Treasury from the four station groups is an implicit acknowledgement that the evidence uncovered by then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer showed that significant abuses had taken place. From all accounts, the stations also deserve some credit for working in good faith with the FCC and the independent music community to work toward a solution that did more than just put this matter behind them. The internal reforms and side agreement negotiated with the American Association of Independent Music, A2IM, appear to show a real desire to change and include the voices of local, unsigned and independent musicians that have unfortunately been missing more often than not from our public airwaves over the past decade or more.

I am pleased by the voluntary side agreement by the radio station groups to provide more airtime and fair rules of engagement. These rules of engagement require nondiscriminatory treatment for labels and musicians seeking to be played at the stations and echo requirements from my previous payola legislation. I am heartened that these major radio station groups have apparently come to the realization that the old system wasn't working and that it was in their best interest to make it easier for small labels and local musicians to be heard. With more and more musicians being successful without or with limited radio airplay--just look at the commercial and critical success of the Dixie Chicks' last album--I hope radio stations are realizing they must change and play what their potential listeners want to hear in order to remain relevant. I hope this important commitment by four station groups will be replicated throughout the rest of the radio industry.

I have a few lingering concerns that both the consent decrees and side agreement depend heavily on continued good faith instead of strong enforceable standards. I have no reason to believe that the potential good from these agreements will not be fulfilled, but we can't allow backsliding, especially after the 3-year term of the decrees expires. This means that the FCC will need to maintain vigorous and continued oversight. I urge the FCC to take the next step of building on this first wave of settlements and reaching agreements or taking enforcement action against the other stations implicated by the Spitzer investigation.

Mr. President, as we debate this important legislation regarding stem cell research, we are reminded of the millions of patients and families across America who await treatment and cures for our most deadly and tragic diseases. Scientists believe that over half of Americans over 85 may suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and at least half a million Americans currently have Parkinson's disease. People of all ages suffer from spinal cord injuries, diabetes and other chronic conditions. As we all know, these kinds of serious diagnoses affect not only the patient, but that patient's family, friends, and community.

I am a strong supporter and proud cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I have heard from many of my constituents in Wisconsin in support of this legislation, and I am glad that the Senate is again addressing this issue and responding to the requests of millions across the country. It is important that we approve this legislation as expeditiously as possible, and provide the resources that scientists need to develop treatments and cures for these diseases. Millions of patients and their families across the Nation cannot afford to wait any longer for enactment of this urgently needed legislation.

Researchers believe that they can unlock enormous potential in stem cell research if Congress and the President will only give them the keys. At the University of Wisconsin in 1998, Dr. James Thomson became the first scientist to break into this new frontier by isolating human embryonic stem cells. Since then, researchers at the University have continued to be leaders in this science. But despite the incredible promise this research holds, it has been limited by the President since 2001. As others have noted, even Story Landis, director of the NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and interim chair of the agency's stem cell task force, acknowledges that the President's stem cell policy is holding back potential breakthroughs. Congress must act to provide more stem cell lines to scientists so that this research can go forward, without the Federal Government standing in the way.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would allow federally funded

research to be conducted on stem cell lines derived from excess embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization--IVF--that are no longer needed and are donated by couples for research. It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of embryos created for fertility treatments that could be used for research and will otherwise be destroyed. This bill does not interfere with alternative stem cell research, but it supports all avenues of research within the ethical limits Congress has already established. This bill will open doors for scientists to access new, healthy, uncontaminated stem cell lines that are currently off-limits to federally funded research under President Bush's restrictions.

The embryos that could potentially be used for research are those that will never be implanted. Thanks to this legislation, embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used for research that could save pain and suffering for millions of people, and the lives of millions more.

While I support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, I have concerns about the other bill we are considering today, S. 30. The language in that bill has not been properly vetted through the scientific community, and it is unclear what effect it might have. S. 30 could potentially limit the scope of current research, even further restricting the availability of stem cells for federally funded research. For these reasons, I oppose this legislation.

There is much work that needs to be done to further understand the role that embryonic stem cells can play in providing answers to some of the most troubling medical diseases and conditions that affect so many Americans. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will help our Nation's researchers get closer to unlocking what this research holds by increasing the quantity and quality of stem cells lines available for research.

Embryonic stem cell research is very important to me and to Wisconsin. I am proud that the University of Wisconsin has played a prominent role in stem cell research in this country. I know that my constituents, and Americans across the country, are eagerly awaiting the benefits that this research will provide.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this incredibly important science which would expand our research horizons, and bring hope to so many people.

Mr. President, this month's elections in Nigeria mark an important moment for Africa's most populous country. Free, fair, and peaceful elections would allow Nigeria

to consolidate its young democracy and to set an example for other developing countries in the region and around the world. Last November, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution I introduced that called upon the Government of Nigeria and the Independent National Electoral Commission to demonstrate a commitment to successful democratic elections and promised continued U.S. and international support for this effort. With the first set of votes just days away, I am disheartened by the poor performance of these individuals and institutions in the leadup to these historic polls.

Since GEN Olusegun Obasanjo took the helm of Nigeria's first civilian government in 15 years in 1999, the United States and the wider international community have made significant investments in assisting Nigeria's democratic transition in recognition of the country's strategic and symbolic importance. If this month's polls do not produce a legitimate, fairly elected government, however, the United States and our allies will need to reconsider our political and material support to Nigeria.

Following a violently contested election in 2003, President Obasanjo declared that his ``initial assignment as President is trying to heal the wounds from the elections.'' Instead, in the runup to this month's polls, he has sparked fresh outrage by using the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to limit competition, not promote it; by repressing dissent rather than encouraging free speech; by harassing domestic observers and obstructing the free and fair participation of opposition candidates. These abuses reveal the need for substantial electoral reform if Nigeria is to continue becoming a role model of democracy in Africa and around the world.

By almost all accounts, Nigeria is simply not ready to conduct this election, and the President and the Chairman of INEC should be held accountable for that failure. There is still time, however, to demonstrate a commitment to the democratic process by accrediting and facilitating the work of domestic and foreign election observers, approving and publicizing election procedures and polling places, and posting voter lists at each polling location. Transparent conduct of the polls to be held on April 14 and 21, including unrestricted access to polling places for election monitors, will bolster the credibility of President Obasanjo's government and INEC, which have been damaged by slow and incomplete preparations in past months.

Disrespect for the principles and processes of democracy threaten the gains that President Obasanjo's government has overseen in the past 8 years. Nigeria's recent economic growth, domestic security, and international reputation are all at stake because development, stability, and credibility cannot be sustained in a dysfunctional political system. Regardless of the outcome of this month's elections, I urge all political leaders and their supporters to respect the rule of law, preserve the democratic process, and renounce violence.

This is a critical moment for Nigeria and for Africa. If problems related to this month's elections lead to unrest and instability in Nigeria, the impact could unsettle the region, indirectly by example and directly by weakening one of the most important forces for peace and progress on the continent. Under President Obasanjo's leadership, Nigeria has defended democracy throughout Africa by working with allies to reverse coups and efforts to undermine constitutional processes. Now the President has put his own democracy at risk, and the world is watching. Corruption, violence, repression, and obstruction of transparent, legitimate elections will not be tolerated by the international community, and Nigeria and its leaders will be judged accordingly.

Mr. President, it is just over 4 years since our brave troops marched into Baghdad, bringing an end to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Four long years later, however, over 141,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and more are on the way, while that country continues its tragic descent into widespread violence and civil war. Four years later, the President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end--or even acknowledging when it might end. And, 4 years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission.

That is why, today, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I am introducing legislation that would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, and that would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008, by ending funding for the war on that date. While I would personally prefer an even stronger approach, with a shorter time-frame, for ending the war, I am pleased to be working with the Majority Leader on this legislation. Senator Reid understands the terrible costs of this war, and he understands the solemn obligation we have in this body to bring it to a close. As he put it just a few days ago, ``It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain.'' I thank Senator Reid for his support and for agreeing to bring the bill up for a vote before Memorial Day. I am also pleased to have the cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse and Kennedy.

There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war, which the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) called a ``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And even if there were a military solution, civil war is only one of the problems causing violence and instability in Iraq. Again, let me quote the NIE: ``the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on- Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.''

Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it

make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of ``Shia-on-Shia violence'' or ``criminally motivated violence'' in Iraq.

It does, however, make sense to address the ongoing threat posed by al Qaeda. For that reason, the Feingold-Reid legislation would allow ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations'' to continue in Iraq after March 2008. The bill also has narrow exceptions for U.S. troops to train and equip Iraqis and provide security for other U.S. troops and civilian personnel, but neither of these exceptions authorizes U.S. troops to engage in combat operations.

The Feingold-Reid bill allows targeted operations to take out terrorists who pose a threat to the United States, but it recognizes that maintaining a huge U.S. troop presence in Iraq doesn't help--in fact, it hurts--our global anti-terrorism efforts. By redeploying the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, this legislation will allow us to re-focus on the broader fight against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a one country franchise, and the President's strategy of devoting so much of our resources and attention to one country is short-sighted and counter-productive.

Some of my colleagues argue that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need.

Those arguments are false. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. The Feingold-Reid bill would end our involvement in the war without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a March 31, 2008, deadline after which funding for the war will be terminated, Congress can provide ample time for the President to safely redeploy our troops.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' Speaking of my proposal to end funding for the war, he said: ``There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized.''

This has been done before, in fact not that long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?

Of course not. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

That same day, October 15, 1993, several Senators--myself included-- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal or in case of American POWs or MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty- eight Senators, most of them Republicans, opposed a measure to table that amendment. We did so because we understood that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. As Senator Hatch said at the time, ``The McCain amendment provides the President with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops.''

Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue.

The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress--newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq--to let the people's voices be heard. And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is just over 4 years since our brave troops marched into Baghdad, bringing an end to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Four long years later, however, over 141,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and more are on the way, while that country continues its tragic descent into widespread violence and civil war. Four years later, the President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end--or even acknowledging when it might end. And, 4 years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission.

That is why, today, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I am introducing legislation that would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, and that would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008, by ending funding for the war on that date. While I would personally prefer an even stronger approach, with a shorter time-frame, for ending the war, I am pleased to be working with the Majority Leader on this legislation. Senator Reid understands the terrible costs of this war, and he understands the solemn obligation we have in this body to bring it to a close. As he put it just a few days ago, ``It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain.'' I thank Senator Reid for his support and for agreeing to bring the bill up for a vote before Memorial Day. I am also pleased to have the cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse and Kennedy.

There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war, which the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) called a ``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And even if there were a military solution, civil war is only one of the problems causing violence and instability in Iraq. Again, let me quote the NIE: ``the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on- Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.''

Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it

make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of ``Shia-on-Shia violence'' or ``criminally motivated violence'' in Iraq.

It does, however, make sense to address the ongoing threat posed by al Qaeda. For that reason, the Feingold-Reid legislation would allow ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations'' to continue in Iraq after March 2008. The bill also has narrow exceptions for U.S. troops to train and equip Iraqis and provide security for other U.S. troops and civilian personnel, but neither of these exceptions authorizes U.S. troops to engage in combat operations.

The Feingold-Reid bill allows targeted operations to take out terrorists who pose a threat to the United States, but it recognizes that maintaining a huge U.S. troop presence in Iraq doesn't help--in fact, it hurts--our global anti-terrorism efforts. By redeploying the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, this legislation will allow us to re-focus on the broader fight against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a one country franchise, and the President's strategy of devoting so much of our resources and attention to one country is short-sighted and counter-productive.

Some of my colleagues argue that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need.

Those arguments are false. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. The Feingold-Reid bill would end our involvement in the war without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a March 31, 2008, deadline after which funding for the war will be terminated, Congress can provide ample time for the President to safely redeploy our troops.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' Speaking of my proposal to end funding for the war, he said: ``There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized.''

This has been done before, in fact not that long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?

Of course not. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

That same day, October 15, 1993, several Senators--myself included-- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal or in case of American POWs or MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty- eight Senators, most of them Republicans, opposed a measure to table that amendment. We did so because we understood that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. As Senator Hatch said at the time, ``The McCain amendment provides the President with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops.''

Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue.

The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress--newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq--to let the people's voices be heard. And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same.

I yield the floor.